Present         (1)    Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                     President

                    (2)     Sri Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh,

                              Member

Date of Order : - 09.07.2015

                    Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite parties:-

1. To pay the full claimed amount i.e. 27,635/- ( Rs. Twenty seven thousand Six Hundred Thirty Five only ) incurred on car – repair & with interest @ 18% pendate lite.
2. To pay Rs. 50,000/- ( Rs. Fifty thousand only ) as Compensation for mental and physical torture.
3. To pat Rs. 8,000/- ( Rs. Eight Thousand only ) as litigation cost.

2. Brief facts of the case which led to the filing of complaint are as follows:-

1. The complainant purchased a Maruti car Model 800 bearing Engine No. 1943020 Chessis No. 2249626 and registration No. BR-1M-9213. The same was insured with the opposite parties in the branch office of National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional office No. 1, Arunachal Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna – 1 ( Opposite party no. 1 ). The insurance policy no. of the said private care was 170500/31/02/6101784 and the period of insurance of the said care was from 12:00 A.M. of 21.10.2002 to the midnight of 20.10.2003.
2. The original complainant was a house wife. On 16.11.2002, the complainant’s son namely Vivek was driving the said car during travelling in the city of Patna with the complainant, the said Maruti car met with an accident and was damaged badly. It is pertinent to mention here that the son of the complainant had a valid driving license for L.M.V. & M. Cycle/Sector etc.
3. The complainant then informed the branch office of the National Insurance Co. at Patna and given her car Maruti 800 in workshop at Mithila Motors Ltd. Bataganj, Digha, Patna for repairing. The surveyor had taken photograph of aforesaid car at workshop. After repairing work, the workshop given a voucher of Rs. 27,635/- ( Rs. Twenty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Five only ) to the complainant bearing invoice no. 003594 on 05.12.2002, which she paid, then only vehicle was allowed to come out  from the workshop.
4. The aforesaid voucher of Rs. 27,635/- ( Rs. Twenty Seven Thousand Six hundred Thirty Five only ) with the claim application submitted to the Branch office of National Insurance Co. The complainant when found no reply from the opposite parties, she visited several times there but she was only verbally assured that claim to be settled, but they did nothing. The complainant visited to the opposite party no. 3 and there she was informed that only Rs. 8,000/- ( Rs. Eight Thousand only ) has been sanctioned and approved against her claim of Rs. 27,635/- ( Rs. Twenty Seven Thousand Six hundred Thirty Five only ). The complainant then represented to the Regional Manager ( opposite party no. 3 ) on 23.05.2003 to redresses the claim that instead of settlement of her genuine and bonafide claim against repairing of her car, the official of the Insurance Co. only harassing her mentally and physically.
5. The Senior Divisional Manager vide his letter dated 17.06.2003 through registered post sent a cheque of Rs. 8,530/- dated 31.03.2003 to the complainant, which the complainant returned on 10.07.2003. She repeatedly persuaded her grievance before the concerned official of Insurance Co.

3. The Opposite Party nos. 1 to 6 jointly and severally in their Show Cause has submitted are as follows :-

1. The instant complaint case filed against the Insurance Company is not maintainable either on facts and law and  hence fit to be dismissed against this Insurance Company.
2. The case is barred by law of limitation and there is no sufficient cause of action for filling the case against this opposite party.
3. The case is barred under law of estoppels waiver and acquiescence the complainant has suppressed and concealed the material facts as well as the real and relevant facts in the complaint petition deliberately with ulterior motive and also to mislead the forum only with a view to obtain favourable order.
4. The statement contained in the complaint petition is a matter of record and requires no comments.
5. The statement made in the complaint petition is correct to this extent only that Maruti car of the complainant got some damaged in accident while the said Maruti car is alleged to have been driven by son of the complainant namely Vivek. On the date of accident. The complainant has to give strict proof of the same with regard to the information given to Insurance Company.
6. The statement made in complaint petition are matter of record and the complainant has to give strict proof of the same. It is stated in this context that the voucher of workshop of Mithila Motor is prepared at the instance of the complainant only with a view to take pecuniary benefit of claim of accident vehicle from the Insurance Company. The voucher of Mithila Motors is forged and fabricated one and no reliance can be placed on it.
7. It submitted in this context that the surveyor/ investigator of the Insurance Company inspected the accidental vehicle and assessed it loss which caused to the car and submitted its report for payment of Rs. 8,530/- to the complainant and accordingly the Insurance Company vide its letter dated 17.06.2003 through registered post sent a cheque dated 31.03.2003 for Rs. 8,530/- of Central Bank of India as full and final amount of loss incurred to the vehicle of the Insurer of the Insurer namely Poonam Kumari bearing registration no. BR-1M-9213 Maruti car along with three copy of form B – 17 and registered the complainant to return. One copy of form B-17 duly stamped with one Rupees revenue Stamp on it but the complainant refused to accept the cheque and returned the same to the Insurance company.
8. The other statements made in the complaint petition are not admitted and denied. The reasons stated in Annexure – 5 to 7 attached with the complaint petition with regards to non acceptance of loss amount assessed by the Officials of National Insurance Company Ltd. are not admitted by the Insurance Company.
9. In view of the facts stated above there is/was no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company rather the complainant herself is responsible for not accepting the cheque against her claim.
10. The other statement which are not admitted in this written statement are deemed to have been denied by this Insurance company and hence the complaint petition is fit to be dismissed out right.
11. The instant complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act is not tenable in the eye of law and as such fit to be dismissed.
12. The Insurance company reserves its right to file Addl. Written Statement/ Show cause if any new facts or materials comes at the instance of parties at any subsequent stage.
13. In any view of the matter the complainant in the manner filed against the Insurance Company is not maintainable.

4. The complainant in his rejoinder has submitted the following facts :

1. The instant complaint case against the Insurance Company is maintainable either on facts and law and hence fit to be allowed against the Insurance Company.
2. The complainant petition is not barred by law of limitation and there is sufficient cause of action for filling the case against opposite party. The complaint case is not barred under law of estoppels waiver and acquiescence. The complainant has not deliberately with ulterior motive suppressed and concealed the material and relevant facts in the complaint petition and also not mislead the forum only with a view to obtain favourable order.
3. The son of the complainant namely Vivek was driving license at the time of accident and the complainant namely Poonam Kumari was also travelling alongwith her son and the name of the husband of the complainant is Sri B.K. Singh. The complainant is lady and at present the husband of the complainant namely Sri B.K.Singh is Station Manager, E.C. Railway, Patna Junction Station, Patna. The complainant informed concerned office of National Insurance Company at Patna and the surveyor of Insurance Company had taken photo of damaged/accident Maruti Car and he has wrongly assessed the claim of the Maruti Car of the complainant.
4. It is stated that the detail materials are mentioned in the vouchers as contained in Annexure – 2 to the complaint case in respect of accidental vehicle and the voucher has not been prepared at the instance of complainant rather the authority of Insurance Company justifying own action in respect of assessment amount of Rs. 8,530/- ( Rs. Eight Thousand Five hundred Thirty only ) which was not accepted by the complainant. The voucher of Mithila Motors is related to accidental Maruti car of the complainant and the said voucher is genuine and original receipt granted by Mithila Motors, it can be enquired into from the Mithila Motors.
5. There is/was deficiency in service on the part on Insurance complaint and the complainant is not responsible for that.

We have perused the documents placed on record and have heard the parties at length.

The opposite parties while denying the assertions made by the complainant in their written statement has submitted that invoice of repairing issued by the Mithila Motors had been prepared at the instance of the complainant and those invoices are forged and fabricated and hence it cannot be relied upon. But there is nothing on the record to support their version and on mere conjecture and surmises one cannot arrive at a conclusion. Thus this contention of the opposite parties in quite untenable and on this count alone the prayer of the complainant succeeds.

Thus, the Opposite parties are responsible for deficiency in service and accordingly, we direct the Opposite Parties jointly and severally to pay the claim amount of Rs. 27,635/-( Rs. Twenty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Five only ) with interest @ 9% ( nine ) per annum from 17.06.2003, date on which cheque of lessor value dispatched to the complainant for delivery, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the interest rate will be 12% ( twelve ) per annum till its final payment.

Further, the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only ) to the complainant as composite charge for compensation and litigation costs within the aforesaid period of two months.

Thus, this case stands allowed to the extent indicated above.

                                        Member                                                        President